Atheism: Is it a religion?

[dawiyd]

I say yes. The easy way out for the Atheist is to say that Atheism is the "Non belief in a theistic G-d. See? A-theism." OK, but that still doesn't prove that Atheism is not a religion. After all, Buddhists are A-theists, yet Buddhism is a religion...

What form of Buddhism, there is more than one, and it could be saidit is more akin to a philosophy than a religion.

I am a Theist. That means I have faith in and believe in G-d. If I contend that Atheism is a religion, then what, exactly do they believe in or have faith in that makes Atheism a religion? I further contend that it's the Atheist's faith and belief that their is no G-d that makes Atheism a religion.

Then everyones faith in a lack of belief in anything else is also a religion by your definition, welcome to the slippery slope.

If one believes in the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist*, this is religious belief. The obverse holds true, out of inductive reasoning: If one believes in the non-existence of something that cannot be proven to exist, it is religious belief.

No it isn't, stop the special pleading it's pathetic.

*Evolution theory, for example, can be proved, provided tehre's enough time and enough evidence to do so

Wrong, NOTHING is proven in science, as science is an explanation of what we see, yet it cannot be proven, as proof resides in a realm with an axiomatic basis, but the again we can never prove these axioms... so it doesn't really exist in that realm either, go thank Godel for this.

Note: Something that "doesn't exist" cannot be tested (it doesn't exist; there's nothing to test), thus cannot be proven.

You realize we can't prove the existence of anything, even if we think it exists right? This is why science deals with probability and not proof.

 

[JadeTigress]

How do you know all of this, or did you just come to this conclusion on your own?

It's amazing that you can have such a solid belief in an entire world of the supernatural, know how it operates and you have experienced the supernatural multiple times in your life.

Yet you can somehow remain utterly uninterested in this realm, a realm that very few people have access to or even know about.

Interesting that your able to restrain your emotions, curiosities and passions regarding this supernatural realm that you have special access to.

It's the conclusion I've come to based on my personal experiences, and the things I've learned from those experiences.

I don't know that I'd call myself 'uninterested', as I do find all of it very interesting.

As an atheist, I did have supernatural beliefs. I just didn't believe in any deities. So the 'supernatural realm' has always been a part of my life. Having various supernatural experiences is just normal for me.

I don't keep a constant focus on the gods because I see no reason to, especially when they don't care if I do or not. My life is my life, this stuff is always going to be around me whether I focus on it or not. So since life is life no matter what, and again, I've always had supernatural beliefs so this stuff is affecting my life the same way as a theist as it did as an atheist, I just see no need to alter my life. I have no desire to alter my life, and even if I did, I have no idea how exactly I would alter it. Because (I sound like a broken record), no matter what, this stuff is always going to be around. My life is my life regardless. How exactly is my life supposed to be different simply because of one shift in perception?

 

[Braunwyn]

What I put in bold is kinda what us Jewish and many Christians do--we defend our faith from the agnostic or Atheist smug people when our faith or ourselves is being attacked. If they call Yeshua or Moses a fairy tale and call us "retards" because of it, I'll pick up the sword (pen) and write my defence.

What a load of hooey. The self-proclaimed atheist HUNTER is talking about defense. You really are a funny guy.

 

[Holy Roller]

If the term religion is to be loosely used than I think ethical veganism is a much better example. There aren't any deities or rituals but a movement is involved, either personally or within a community. It's a lifestyle, as being religous is a lifestyle, and it extends beyond words to action or considerate non-action. Atheism, as I experience it, doesn't include any of those things.

But as a vegetarian, you don't really have faith in anything. Thus, vegetarianism is not a religion.

 

[seeker777]

Holy Roller, if I told you that I worshiped a living Deity that looked like an elephant, was pink, spoke french, had 7 eyes, ate books, lived in my closet and reconciles me to God....

Would you believe in this Deity?

If no, then you believe ( have faith) that no such God exists.

Your faith is therefor dependent upon my belief. Your religion revolves around your unbelief in my imaginary elephant Deity.

 

[Braunwyn]

But as a vegetarian, you don't really have faith in anything. Thus, vegetarianism is not a religion.

Veganism does not include faith, that is true. eta: I'm only speaking for myself. That doesn't stop the random ignorant fool from calling it a religion, hence the use of "loose", any way.

etaa: to add, your assertions of faith IRT to atheism are of course wrong.

 

[Holy Roller]

Unable to disagree or agree since "theistic god" is redundant and sounds like a sui generis construct which will only muddy the waters by relying on your own unique interpretation of a nearly meaningless redundancy that may have meaning only to you.



Agree. One need not have "services" to be religious. Indeed one merely need hold a particular belief in common around a "supernatural agency or morality". "Services" usually only serve to maintain coherence since there is often no "outside" source of information confirmatory of any given common belief in the supernatural among a group of individuals. (This is called "indoctrination".)



Agree, as per Wordnet.princeton.edu:

[/list]

PLEASE RE-READ THE POSTS BY MANY OF THE ATHEISTS. You really need to read others' commentary before you unilaterally dismiss it in order to form your own strawman.

I will limit my discussion to "Weak Atheism" for obvious reasons:

Atheism, specifically "Weak Atheism", is the failure to believe in the existence of God.

I know his is hard to understand for some folks, but it is a very important distinction. It is NOT an active disbelief except in the "Strong Atheist" variant. Active disbelief indicates one is attempting to prove a negative. That is logically incoherent. That is why many who have put more than a few minutes into their atheism don't usually make the strong positive claim "There is no God".

Are there strong atheists out there who do? Sure. But then there are Christians who do non-Christian things as well.

The point being that Weak Atheism, at it's core, being the most logically robust form of atheism merely fails to believe in God.

I highly recommend you pay closer attention before continuing on your merry way burning strawmen in your march to the sea of ignorance. We have put many hours, years and effort into understanding religion, both from the religious side and from the atheist side, the least you can do is show us the respect of actually attempting to understand OUR point of view in return.



Worship of what??



Is this 7th grade? I remember seeing notes passed around like this.

The post tries to look scholarly, but comes off looking pretentious, instead.

First off, I said "theistic G-d." This is important, since we're dealing with a mode of belief ("Atheism") that contains the 'theist' component ("theism"), thus it's not redundant. If it's not redundant to at least one person, then it's not redundant for all.
Also, your definition, "failure to believe in the existence of G-d", reads to me like agnosticism, since agnosticism doesn't believe in G-d necessarily, but still holds out a marginal belief in something(s) that can be called "universal intelligence". For this reason, you're an agnostic, since Atheists deny G-d's existence altogether.
Also, the post is pretentious because of the lol "sea of ignorance" comment (don't do the full-time poet thing; keep your day job instead), and the "burning strawman" remark.

 

[seeker777]

Holy Roller, if I told you that I worshiped a living Deity that looked like an elephant, was pink, spoke french, had 7 eyes, ate books, lived in my closet and reconciles me to God....

Would you believe in this Deity?

If no, then you believe ( have faith) that no such God exists.

Your faith is therefor dependent upon my belief. Your religion revolves around your unbelief in my imaginary elephant Deity.

Your idea is not only weak, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Braunwyn]

I have to correct myself. Veganism for some (various Buddist sects, jains, etc) do indeed hold veg*nism as an aspect of their faith.

 

[Bombila]

The post tries to look scholarly, but comes off looking pretentious, instead.

First off, I said "theistic G-d." This is important, since we're dealing with a mode of belief ("Atheism") that contains the 'theist' component ("theism"), thus it's not redundant. If it's not redundant to at least one person, then it's not redundant for all.
Also, your definition, "failure to believe in the existence of G-d", reads to me like agnosticism, since agnosticism doesn't believe in G-d necessarily, but still holds out a marginal belief in something(s) that can be called "universal intelligence". For this reason, you're an agnostic, since Atheists deny G-d's existence altogether.
Also, the post is pretentious because of the lol "sea of ignorance" comment (don't do the full-time poet thing; keep your day job instead), and the "burning strawman" remark.

Wrong. Agnosticism implies no such thing. A 'universal intelligence' is another way of describing some kind of deity, and as such might describe a Deist's belief.

Obviously you fail to take note of posts that raise difficult concepts, as agnosticism has previously been addressed.

 

[JadeTigress]

seeker777, I'm thinking he's deliberately ignoring you. There's no way he can get out of that one.

 

[Braunwyn]

Wrong. Agnosticism implies no such thing. A 'universal intelligence' is another way of describing some kind of deity, and as such might describe a Deist's belief.

Obviously you fail to take note of posts that raise difficult concepts, as agnosticism has previously been addressed.

Imo, whatever it is HR is getting from these threads has little to do with (nothing at all probably) the posts from other members.

 

[Bombila]

Imo, whatever it is HR is getting from these threads has little to do with (nothing at all probably) the posts from other members.

I agree, and am stifled by the regulations as to what i think.

 

[Holy Roller]

Holy Roller, if I told you that I worshiped a living Deity that looked like an elephant, was pink, spoke french, had 7 eyes, ate books, lived in my closet and reconciles me to God....

Would you believe in this Deity?

If no, then you believe ( have faith) that no such God exists.

Your faith is therefor dependent upon my belief. Your religion revolves around your unbelief in my imaginary elephant Deity.

An interesting application of logic.
In that case, I am not religious in not believing your pink elephant god exists (unless, of course, I'm going thru acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome, lol...).
Let's turn the tide to something less absurd than the pink elephant god. Let's take the Area 51 crowd, for example. It could be said that the Area 51 people are somewhat religious. There's no god involved, but there is the something that's more advanced than us (aliens landing at Roswell, etc.). Like Christianity and Judaism, there are some first-hand and many third-hand accounts that aliens landed and so fourth.
There are people who actually believe and have faith that the aliens have landed. Will I be religious by denying their claims without any investigation? No, because the idea that aliens are out there is too plausible (huge Universe), meaning I'll have faith with them and believe with them, but only in a small corner of real estate that defines the entire estate of their belief. I am not being religious by discounting their alleged eye-witness accounts.
Likewise, you're being religious if you have faith in the non-existence of G-d. You are not being religious if you may or may not believe in any specific version of any religion's G-d.

 

[Holy Roller]

seeker777, I'm thinking he's deliberately ignoring you. There's no way he can get out of that one.

No, I got him. His persistence and good timing meant I got to reply to his thread!
BTW, seeker777, it was never my intention to ignore any of your threads. Fortunately, you and I were at the right time and right place for your idea to get addressed by me.

 

[dawiyd]

An interesting application of logic.
In that case, I am not religious in not believing your pink elephant god exists (unless, of course, I'm going thru acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome, lol...).
Let's turn the tide to something less absurd than the pink elephant god. Let's take the Area 51 crowd, for example. It could be said that the Area 51 people are somewhat religious. There's no god involved, but there is the something that's more advanced than us (aliens landing at Roswell, etc.). Like Christianity and Judaism, there are some first-hand and many third-hand accounts that aliens landed and so fourth.
There are people who actually believe and have faith that the aliens have landed. Will I be religious by denying their claims without any investigation? No, because the idea that aliens are out there is too plausible (huge Universe). I am not being religious by discounting their alleged eye-witness accounts.
Likewise, you're being religious if you have faith in the non-existence of G-d. You are not being religious if you may or may not believe in any specific version of any religion's G-d.

Why is the area 51 crowd less absurd than believers in a pink elephant?

 

[dawiyd]

Likewise, you're being religious if you have faith in the non-existence of G-d.

How about if they just lack faith in the existence of a god? As opposed to what you put.

 

[seeker777]

An interesting application of logic.
In that case, I am not religious in not believing your pink elephant god exists (unless, of course, I'm going thru acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome, lol...).
Let's turn the tide to something less absurd than the pink elephant god.

There are many people in the world who would find the belief in a pink elephant God no less absurd that the beliefs of a Christian or a Hindu.

You realize that don't you?

In any event, you seem to grasp the concept that your not believing in the pink elephant God, is not a faith and is not a religion of not believing in the pink elephant God.

Can I safely assume that you now no longer profess that Atheism is a religion?

 

[Braunwyn]

I agree, and am stifled by the regulations as to what i think.

Well, he's (eta: general atheist hunters to be clear) on the hunt for atheists so he's obviously in need of something from atheists. Given his/their lack of interest in what atheists actually think about atheism points to whatever battle he's/their having with himself (his god only knows i suppose). I'm curious to see how it plays out.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

I say yes.

[snipped]

It depends, really. Once someone demands you call it "Atheism" as opposed to atheism, they certainly adhere to it with a religious fervor. When it becomes evangelical, it's bordering on the religious.

The strange thing is the way so many anti-theists have misappropriated the term "atheist". The atheists I know simply don't believe, and they've no beef with any of it. But Atheism, as re-invented by Harris and Dawkins, is almost certainly a religion.